Robinson v. Davis
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Drew Circuit Court. Marcus L. Hawkins, Judge. The .presumption, in the absence of proof to the contrary, is that an officer having a duty to perform performs that duty in accordance with the law. 25 Ark. 311; 30 Ark. 69; 35 Ark. 99; 31 Ark. 609. The evidence fails to show that the land was sold three times, as alleged by appellees. A new trial should have been awarded on the ground of surprise.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Drew Circuit Court. Marcus L. Hawkins, Judge. The .presumption, in the absence of proof to the contrary, is that an officer having a duty to perform performs that duty in accordance with the law. 25 Ark. 311; 30 Ark. 69; 35 Ark. 99; 31 Ark. 609. The evidence fails to show that the land was sold three times, as alleged by appellees. A new trial should have been awarded on the ground of surprise. Section 4197 Sand. & H. Dig. enumerates the grounds for new trial, and appellant’s case does not fall within any of its clauses.
1Opinion of the CourtHughes, J.
Joe Davis, one of the appellees, brought this suit in ejectment against Nancy Robinson, in the circuit court of Chicot county, to recover the northeast | of section seventeen, in township sixteen south, and range one west, situated in said county of Chicot. Judgment by default was rendered for the plaintiff. This judgment was set aside, and a new trial was granted. The Sunny Side Lumber Company purchased the land of Joe Davis pending the litigation, and upon its applieaton was made a party plaintiff to the suit, and obtained a change of venue to the county of Drew, where the circuit court, on…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Church v. HolcombMichigan Supreme Court · 1880
- Manz v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1885
- Lane v. LaneSupreme Court of Georgia · 1891
- Cottrell v. WatkinsSupreme Court of Virginia · 1893
- Kirstein v. MaddenCalifornia Supreme Court · 1869
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.